Mediaboss Marketing

Protesters move off the Berkeley campus and onto the surrounding streets. (Screen shot via Twitter)

The University of California, Berkeley is known for its decades of progressive protest movementsso its no surprise that the campus experienced widespread protests earlier this week in response to an event that was to feature far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos.

The event was canceled after a faction of the demonstrators became violent, NPR reports:

Its far from the first time a Yiannopoulos speaking event was canceled because of protests, which occur regularly at his events.

In a statement, the university said: The violence was instigated by a group of about 150 masked agitators who came onto campus and interrupted an otherwise non-violent protest.

The cancellation of the event prompted President Trump to threaten to cut federal funding from the public university:

Trumps tweet sparked a debate about free speech at a time when many are already wondering if the new administration is suppressing the First Amendment.

Many Democrats were quick to respond to Trumps tweet. Rep. Barbara Lee, who represents Berkeley as part of the 13th District of California, issued a news release Thursday:

Milo Yiannopoulos has made a career of inflaming racist, sexist and nativist sentiments. Berkeley has a proud history of dissent and students were fully within their rights to protest peacefully. I am disappointed by the unacceptable acts of violence by outside agitators which were counterproductive and dangerous.

President Donald Trump cannot bully our university into silence. Simply put, President Trumps empty threat to cut funding from UC Berkeley is an abuse of power. As a senior member of the education funding subcommittee, I will continue to stand up to President Trumps overreach and defend the rights of our students and faculty.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also defended the university. Berkeley is the center of the free speech movement, she said. I think that the protesters have a right to free speech as well. If there is an infiltration of the crowd by those that are less than peaceful, that should be addressed.

And numerous other California representatives jumped in via Twitter:

UC Berkeley students and officials were left reeling from the violence at a campus known for its determined yet peaceful protests. Local NBC affiliate KCRA reports:

It was not a proud night for this campus, school spokesman Dan Mogulof said, later adding, We are proud of our history and legacy as the home of the free-speech movement.

The school prides itself on its liberalism and political correctness, but many on campus pointed to the irony of the historical fight for free speech turning into a suppression of unpopular views today.

Berkeley has always stood for self-expression, said Russell Ude, a 20-year-old football player. Things like this discredit peaceful protest.

Philosophy professor John Searle, a leader of the free-speech movement and professor since 1959, called the cancellation an absolute scandal. He said most of what Yiannopoulos professes is disgusting but that hes entitled to be heard.

Free speech has to be allowed for everyone, Searle said.

Others seem to agree with Searle and have argued that the cancellation of Yiannopoulos event represents a threat to free speech.

Conservative students have the right to bring obnoxious bigots to speak on campus and other students have a right to protest, writes The Atlantics Peter Beinart. But controversial speakers should be allowed to speak.

Others, however, argue that Yiannopoulos doesnt represent a typical political speaker.

Milo is a very unique situation, one Berkeley student told NPR. Milo is an entertainer who has engineered a national tour around provoking college campuses, in order to feed into a narrative that supports this idea that liberal campuses are shutting down free speech.

A student at UC Daviswhere a recent Yiannopoulos event also was canceled after protestssaid that as a transgender person, she would fear for her safety if he came to the campus.

The fear is with the folks who are going to see him, the student told CNN. He leaves. But the folks who are attending [his event] are the folks that I have to sit next to in classrooms.

The First Amendment issue is unlikely to be resolved soon because incendiary far-right figures like Yiannopoulos are coming to the forefront of the political debate ever since former Breitbart chairman Steve Bannon joined the Trump administration.

Arguments about whether to label Bannon, Yiannopoulos and others of their ilk as white nationalists or neo-Nazis have also emerged in recent weeks.

While its unlikely that Trump would be able to cut off UC Berkeleys federal funding, the takeaway from this weeks protests is about more than fiscal issues.

I think we need to have a serious conversation about protests, one Berkeley student said. This is going to be a big part of our lives for the next four years.

Posted by Emma Niles.

More Below the Ad

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Originally posted here:
Emma Niles: UC Berkeley Protests Spark Debate Over First ... - Truthdig

(Photo: Courtney Pedroza/The Republic)

In 1992, a Greenway High Schooljournalism student testified before an Arizona Senate committee in support of a bill to provideincreased First Amendmentprotections to high school journalists. She and her fellow students on the school newspaper inspired the bill after school administrators killed a story and an editorial cartoon.

Twenty-five years later, that student is now a state senator herself and advocating for the very same bill which never passed, despite multiple efforts over the years. She's giving it another try.

Sen. Kimberly Yee, R-Phoenix, introduced Senate Bill 1384, which allows a student journalist at a high school, community college or university to exercise free speech in school-sponsored media. Specifically, it states that student journalists' freedom of speech and of the press are not limited because the media is funded by the school or produced as part of a journalism class.

It also prohibits discipline against a student journalist or a student media adviserwho exercisestheir speech or press freedoms

"I have a very personal history with this bill," Yee said, adding that she wrote stories and drew editorial cartoons as a student. "I'm just trying to get our First Amendment rights exercising in our student papers."

There are limits. The bill concedes that it doesn't authorize media that doesn't comply with written standards for school-sponsored media adopted by the school, or that disrupts the "orderly operation" of the school.It also wouldn't override the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, which stated that schools may refuse to support speech that is inconsistent with their standards.

But even with those limits, students, teachers and Yee advocated for the bill during a Senate Education Committee public hearing Thursday. Yee sits on the committee. The bill passed and now advances to a vote of the full Senate.

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2l109WK

See the rest here:
Arizona student journalists could get 1st Amendment protections - AZCentral.com

President Trump made perhaps his most important decision to date with the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. In Gorsuch, Trump has chosen a strong defender of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

In his time on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Gorsuch consistently wrote or joined pro-free speech rulings. The Center for Competitive Politics found four cases Gorsuch has ruled on concerning press freedom, one case concerning petition rights, and one case on contribution limits. In each instance, he came down on the side of the First Amendment.

In one case, Gorsuch analyzed government harassment and its effect on a citizen's ability to exercise his First Amendment rights.

The plaintiff alleged that he was physically and verbally intimidated by a Sheriff Deputy to deter him from filing a tax appeal. Gorsuch overturned a district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Gorsuch wrote a robust defense of the right to petition government: "[A] private citizen exercises a constitutionally protected First Amendment right anytime he or she petitions the government for redress; the petitioning clause of the First Amendment does not pick and choose its causes. The minor and questionable, along with the mighty and consequential, are all embraced."

Critics of campaign finance laws will be particularly heartened by Gorsuch's concurring opinion in the contribution limit case Riddle v. Hickenlooper. Riddle was a challenge to Colorado's contribution limit laws, which allowed Democratic and Republican candidates to raise twice as much money as minor party and independent candidates. The majority struck down the law as a violation of the equal protection clause.

More interesting than that is Gorsuch's concurring opinion in the case. He expressed "some uncertainty about the level of scrutiny the Supreme Court wishes us to apply" to contribution limit cases, and signaled that he might support the application of strict scrutiny, the most stringent standard of judicial review. If that were to happen, contribution limits and other restrictions on political speech and association would have a much tougher time in court.

Political speech has been a hot button issue for years. Hillary Clinton promised, if elected, to nominate a justice who would overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that protects corporations' ability to speak out in support of or opposition to candidates. That 5-4 ruling appears to be in safe hands with a future Justice Gorsuch.

In addition to his good judgment, Gorsuch's writing is laudable for its clarity and eloquence. He is a fitting choice to fill the seat formerly occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, even if no one can match Scalia's dry wit.

Also from the Washington Examiner

President Trump's second weekly address hit six topics, encompassing top news from the week.

02/03/17 6:00 PM

Trump's public statements on free speech have at times been troubling, but he has surrounded himself with wise counsel and in his nomination of Gorsuch, it paid off. On the most important decision facing his new administration, the selection of the next justice of the Supreme Court, Trump chose a man with rigor and a deep respect for First Amendment rights.

That's great news for the First Amendment and free speech.

David Keating is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of the Center for Competitive Politics and was previously the executive director of Club for Growth.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Also from the Washington Examiner

This marks the highest disapproval rating of any new commander in chief in recent history.

02/03/17 5:41 PM

Top Story

Just around 400,000 people signed up in the last two weeks, compared to nearly 700,000 signups last year.

02/03/17 4:48 PM

Read the rest here:
Gorsuch's record shows strong support for the First Amendment view of campaign finance laws - Washington Examiner (blog)

Contrary to Peggy Bellows' insinuation that the Trump administration does not respect the First Amendment, the Trump administration has stated just the opposite. What Ms. Bellows does not understand and appreciate is how reviled the mainstream media is by the general public. The Trump administration is only reflecting the attitude the majority of Americans feel.

Fact. From a recent Gallup poll they state "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year." Ms. Bellows' profession barely ranks higher than Congress, congratulations.

Instead of shedding tears for the media I suggest Ms. Bellow take some constructive criticism and perhaps get her colleagues to "listen."

Bring some diversity of thought to the newsroom. It gets very tiresome to hear the repeated narrative the liberal establishment repeats to itself. Find facts and report on them, don't regurgitate Democrat talking points.

Do an in-depth analysis of the revelations in Wilileaks that showed collusion between the Clinton camp and reporters in DC. John Harwood, CNN, Politico to just to name a few.

Do an in-depth analysis of how the primary election was stolen from Bernie Sanders.

Use professional development time to get reporters to actually study and understand how the real world of business operates. Appreciate what a profit and loss statement is and how hard it is for businesses to operate in an environment that is anti-business.

Do professional development in the lost art of critical thinking.

When reporters use the word "could," require them to show that just as realistic an outcome can be "could not."

The media is reviled and Trump is pointing that out to an oblivious press. First Amendment rights come with First Amendment responsibilities

Lou Hrkman

James City County

Read this article:
First Amendment rights, responsibilities - Virginia Gazette

President Trumps immigration executive order has dominated the spotlight this week. Meanwhile, Washingtons so-called influence industry and those seeking to influence the regulation of that industry focused on another executive order prohibiting certain incoming administration officials from lobbying the administration after they leave government.

While the directives immediate effects are limited in scope, commentary on the order inevitably also has extended to demands for greater regulation of lobbying generally, and specifically so-called shadow lobbying. Putting aside the mellifluous rhetoric, cracking down on shadow lobbyists will have no meaningful impact on preventing corruption, and will merely impose more administrative burdens on citizens First Amendment activities.

At a high level, this grievance is as absurd as claiming that a citizen is exploiting a loophole in the tax code by not earning enough to trigger the threshold for paying taxes. For both policy and administrative reasons, most laws must set thresholds below which they do not apply. If every time someone acting below a regulated threshold prompts someone else to advocate lowering the threshold, the laws scope will constantly expand until everything is regulated. This is both socially undesirable and practically untenable.

Indeed, we see this ill-advised trend in proposals to expand the federal and state lobbying laws, and many of which states have implemented. Last year the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics decided to regulate certain public relations consultants as lobbyists. After a wave of protest and litigation, brought in part by the Center for Competitive Politics on behalf of PR firms, the state legislature acted to reign in JCOPEs overreach. Yet the agency still maintains its ruling covers PR firms if they contact bloggers, volunteer journalists, and social media personalities.

Still, the push to regulate these broader activities as lobbying continues. Last week, the National Institute for Lobbying, a lobbyist trade group, proposed regulating as lobbyists public relations firms, political strategists, pollsters, advertising and media consultants, grassroots and coalition specialists, Internet and digital media experts and others who work to influence public policy decisions on behalf of their clients. As policy advocacy increasingly shifts to these avenues, we should recognize this proposal for what it is: a few traditional lobbyists attempting to impose the same regulatory burdens that apply to them on other policy professionals.

Many state and municipal lobbying laws and regulatory agencies also purport to impose no minimum threshold for lobbyist registration. In Missouri, the Center for Competitive Politics is representing Ronald Calzone, a concerned citizen who merely shared his views on proposed legislation with state legislators, against the Missouri Ethics Commissions charges that he failed to register as a lobbyist. This, despite the fact that Mr. Calzone was not paid or designated by anyone to act as a lobbyist, and merely referenced his affiliation with a non-profit organization with no financial resources in his discussions with legislators.

It is unclear exactly what the anti-corruption rationale is for forcing more individuals to register and report as lobbyists. In U.S. v. Harriss, a seminal case addressing the federal lobbying registration and reporting requirements, the Supreme Court identified a mere informational interest in enabling members of Congress to properly evaluate the myriad pressures to which they are regularly subjected. The majority opinion never discussed an interest in curbing corruption, and one justice who voted to invalidate the law even noted that this [law] does not deal with corruption.

Curiously, the majority also cited vaguely Congresss interest in self-protection in regulating lobbying. Protection against what? The voices of constituents? Democratic accountability?

At the same time, the court also acknowledged the concern that the lobbying law may act as a deterrent to the[] exercise of First Amendment rights. This deterrent should not be understated. The lobbying laws are not easy to understand. Take, for example, the reporting last week comparing Trumps lobbying executive order with his predecessors corresponding directive. Much of this coverage was inaccurate, due to journalists failure to grasp subtle legal distinctions between President Obamas order defining lobbying in reference to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, versus Trumps order incorporating by reference the LDAs definition of lobbying activities.

These are the types of legal complexities that large corporations and well-funded advocacy groups pay fortunes for attorneys to navigate. Meanwhile, grassroots organizations are left at risk of running afoul of the law. To expand these lobbying laws to cover even more activities that are attenuated from direct lobbying would merely broaden the regulatory burdens without achieving any public benefit.

Eric Wang is a political law attorney in Washington, D.C. and a senior fellow with the Center for Competitive Politics.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more here:
Possible expansion of lobbying restrictions threaten First Amendment - The Hill (blog)